Dieser Artikel ist auch auf Deutsch verfügbar

This article is part of a series

  • Part 1: Digital Sovereignty: Why Architecture Matters and How to Make Your Company Resilient
  • Part 2: A Governance Framework for Digital Sovereignty (this article)
  • Part 3: EU Data Act: The Beginning of the End for Cloud Monoculture?
  • Part 4: Data Inventories in the EU Data Act: The Democratization of IoT Devices
  • Part 5: The Path to Heterogeneous Cloud Platforms
  • Part 6: The Sovereignty Trap: Between Tiananmen and Trump
  • Part 7: Think Locally: On-Premise LLMs as Drivers of Competitive Advantage
  • Part 8: From Data Graveyards to Knowledge Landscapes
  • Part 9: Digital Sovereignty as Self-Understanding

This article was translated from the original German version using AI-assisted translation.

Digital Sovereignty: A Multi-Layered Concept

Digital sovereignty is often reduced to whether data is stored in European data centers or whether software originates from European vendors. While important, this view is far too narrow. Digital sovereignty is a multidimensional concept that reaches deep into operational and strategic decision-making. It influences not just the technological landscape, but also has far-reaching implications for internal governance and staffing—both internal employees and external contractors.

At its core, companies must ask: Who has control over our critical digital assets and processes, and when? This control goes well beyond technical concerns—it encompasses legal, organizational, and personnel dimensions. For example, when working with internal teams or external service providers, companies must clearly define which responsibilities they are delegating and which they intend to retain. That calls for a precise definition of responsibilities and clear boundaries.

Defining and Delimiting Responsibilities: The Key to Control

An effective governance methodology for digital sovereignty starts with clearly assigning and defining responsibilities. It’s essential to identify which parts of the digital value chain are critical to operational agility and where dependencies exist. Key considerations include availability, data protection, information security, and strategic relevance.

Key elements of accountability mapping:

  • Defining domains and ownership boundaries: Organizations should divide their business processes into clearly defined domains. Each domain should be assigned to one or more accountable units (e.g., teams or departments) responsible for digital sovereignty within that scope. These domains may take the form of self-contained systems or services, designed for high autonomy and therefore greater controllability.

  • Clear interfaces and contracts: When delegating responsibilities—whether to internal teams or external partners—interfaces and related service-level agreements (SLAs) and contracts must be precisely defined. This is especially true for aspects like data storage, access rights, auditability, and exit strategies.

  • Ongoing review and audit: One-time responsibility definitions aren’t enough. Continuous review and auditing are necessary to ensure that boundaries are upheld and the desired level of sovereignty is maintained.

Vendor Management with Sovereignty in Mind

Vendor selection is a critical lever in shaping digital sovereignty. Beyond evaluating functionality and cost, companies should implement vendor classification schemes that explicitly account for sovereignty.

Possible classification criteria:

Strategic relevance: How essential is this vendor’s product or service to your core business and future innovation? The more strategic the role, the more control and scrutiny are required.

  • Resilience: How well can the vendor withstand geopolitical shifts, cyberattacks, or natural disasters? Review their infrastructure, security practices, and contingency plans.

  • Compliance and jurisdiction: Does the vendor meet regulatory requirements like GDPR, DORA, or NIS-2? Pay close attention to data location and legal jurisdiction.

  • Supply chain transparency: What are the vendor’s own dependencies? Where are their components and services sourced?

  • Vendor lock-in: How easily can you switch providers or move the service in-house? Favor open-source tools and open standards where possible.

  • Transparency and auditability: Is the vendor transparent about their processes and governance practices? Are third-party audits permitted?

These assessments should be updated regularly—not just during onboarding. Procurement workflows can be enhanced with checklists and scoring models that reflect these dimensions.

Wardley Mapping as a Strategic Tool

Wardley Maps offer a way to visualize digital value chains and the evolution of their components—from early-stage innovation to commodity status.

How Wardley Maps help inform sovereignty strategy:

  • Highlight dependencies: Identify which cloud services, software, or infrastructure you rely on—and how these pieces interconnect. This makes sovereignty-relevant dependencies more visible.

  • Assess risk: By evaluating maturity and commoditization levels, you can identify potential lock-in risks and areas where alternatives are limited. Mature, commoditized components typically pose fewer sovereignty challenges.

  • Surface alternatives: The map may reveal viable European or open-source alternatives—such as GAIA-X, Matrix protocol, Nextcloud, STACKIT, or OVHcloud—that offer more control.

  • Support strategic decisions: Decide which components to build in-house, buy off-the-shelf, treat as commodities, or replace with European vendors. This also includes decisions around operating services internally or using managed offerings.

  • Enable stakeholder communication: Visualizing your tech stack and its evolution helps communicate strategic considerations across both technical and non-technical stakeholders.

From Strategy to Execution

Implementing a sovereignty-conscious IT strategy goes beyond technical changes. It involves cultural, organizational, and structural transformation.

Organizational steps:

  • Establish a sovereignty board: Form an interdisciplinary team—IT, legal, procurement, business units—to oversee sovereignty requirements and guide strategic decisions.

  • Empower domain teams: Increase autonomy and accountability so teams can make sovereignty-conscious decisions in their domain.

  • Build internal capabilities: Reduce external dependencies by investing in internal expertise—technical, legal, and operational.

Technical practices:

  • Make intentional architectural choices: Design for resilience, portability, and autonomy from the ground up.
  • Use open source and open standards: These reduce vendor lock-in and increase flexibility.
  • Implement multi-cloud or hybrid strategies: Diversifying across providers mitigates dependency risks.

Cultural shifts:

  • Raise awareness: Educate teams across the org on why digital sovereignty matters.
  • Encourage experimentation: Create space to try European or open-source alternatives and share learnings.
  • Commit to continuous learning: Sovereignty is not a one-time goal—it’s a moving target. Stay adaptive.

Conclusion

Digital sovereignty isn’t a “nice-to-have.” It’s a strategic necessity. Organizations that take control of their digital ecosystems position themselves to be more resilient, more agile, and better prepared for future challenges. A clear governance model—one that incorporates accountability mapping, vendor risk management, and strategic planning tools like Wardley Maps—can provide the structure needed to make that happen.

TAGS